Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Ordinance Transfers Banking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs water-transfer rules, banking and hook-up thresholds amid rising costs
Summary
Councilors discussed when water shares must be transferred for building permits, whether a transfer-initiation approach could allow earlier permitting, the town’s ability to accept and bank water shares, and the need to update distance/footage rules for extending the town water line as costs rise.
Fairfield councilors discussed changes to the town’s water-ordinance procedures, including whether applicants must complete a water-share transfer before receiving building permits or whether initiation of a transfer should suffice, and the broader issues of water banking, impact fees and thresholds for requiring water-line extensions.
Staff described a practical problem: current ordinance language requires water-transfer completion before issuing a building permit in single‑lot cases, which can delay construction if transfers take many months. Council members proposed a compromise: allow a building permit after the town verifies a transfer has been initiated (staff or a consultant would confirm) and hold final occupancy approval until the transfer is complete. Supporters said that approach preserves the town’s interest while reducing delay for homeowners who have started the administrative transfer process.
Councilors also discussed water banking and development agreements. In larger development projects, developers typically bring water shares to the town in stages; councilors discussed language for development agreements that would require developers to transfer an initial share (a suggested 25% of their total need was mentioned as an example) and then provide additional shares as lots are sold or infrastructure is used. Participants noted that once a water share is transferred into the town system, the town owns the right; transfers can be subject to terms established in a development agreement.
The group also discussed technical and cost variables that affect whether an applicant should run a water service line to the town system or drill a private well: recent figures cited in the meeting included a $110-per-foot approximate cost to drill a residential well and a suggestion that water shares are trading locally in the $30,000–$40,000 range; participants said those numbers have changed in recent months and recommended staff obtain up-to-date estimates. Council directed staff to seek updated cost estimates and to consult Bowen Collins (the town’s water / consultant firm referenced in the meeting) about ERU/impact‑fee calculations and how to handle water banking in development agreements.
Staff was asked to prepare ordinance language that would allow a building permit once a transfer is underway (with verification) and to recommend whether the town should change its 1,000-foot threshold for requiring line extension, recognizing pipe and construction costs have increased. Councilors also discussed whether the town should purchase and bank water shares for municipal uses; no purchase was approved at the meeting, but members said a town purchase policy should be considered in the future if water shares are available.
